[GNSO-RPM-WG] Notes and Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meeting 11 March 2019

[Julie Hedlund]

Dear All,

Please see below the action items captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 11 March 2019 at 15:45 UTC at the virtual ICANN67 meeting.  Staff will post these to the wiki space.  Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, Zoom chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-03-11+ICANN67+-+Review+of+all+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms+%28RPMs%29+in+all+gTLDs+PDP+WG.

Best Regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

==

NOTES & ACTION ITEMS

Actions:

1. EPDP Suggested Potential/Preliminary Recommendations: Review the revised text in Recommendation 1 of URS Deliberations [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1wZWow09gE6-2DYmZYcty81CT2Tujm-2D3vTZE7lHj2fIZXE_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=qqLG7OMB0lvXieptNAgLg5vFLQj6hGUzNe-2R-Z6bd8&s=66IQX5Tyg6annsaKP-GJEcgnSJXJUiI2nNMbzQaZ3yw&e=> (pages 1, 2 and new question on page 10)
 Question 1:
ACTION ITEMS:
-- Add specific mention of the EPDP Team for input.
-- Add “(including the GDPR and other applicable privacy laws)”.
-- Cross reference to mention in the report where it is noted that most URS are default cases.
-- Change to “specifically, Recommendations #21, #23, and #27” and add a footnote with the recommendation text.
-- Change “was referred” to “were referred”.

2. Public Comment Tool:
ACTION ITEMS:
-- Add to the introduction: "Please note: that there is an option at the end of this form for those who wish to add text or a point not covered by the questions"  Also note that there is a character limit.
-- Add at the end, “are there any other recommendations that you believe the WG should consider making?”
-- Use all capitals to show emphasis – since boldface is not an option.  But use sparingly.

Notes:

1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided.

2. EPDP Suggested Potential/Preliminary Recommendations: Review the revised text in Recommendation 1 of URS Deliberations [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1wZWow09gE6-2DYmZYcty81CT2Tujm-2D3vTZE7lHj2fIZXE_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=qqLG7OMB0lvXieptNAgLg5vFLQj6hGUzNe-2R-Z6bd8&s=66IQX5Tyg6annsaKP-GJEcgnSJXJUiI2nNMbzQaZ3yw&e=> (pages 1, 2 and new question on page 10)

Question 1:
ACTION ITEMS:
-- Add specific mention of the EPDP Team for input.
-- Add “(including the GDPR and other applicable privacy laws)”.
-- Cross reference to mention in the report where it is noted that most URS are default cases.
-- Change to “specifically, Recommendations #21, #23, and #27” and add a footnote with the recommendation text.
-- Change “was referred” to “were referred”.

3. Review of Initial Report Remaining Boilerplate Sections – Action Items from Monday’s meeting) – See the Google docs at: https://community.icann.org/x/1SOJBw

Next Steps: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUr_YS7PbxFDapazk2wtGxPulPsxgL76P45uCsSvSyg/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1rUr-5FYS7PbxFDapazk2wtGxPulPsxgL76P45uCsSvSyg_edit&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=qqLG7OMB0lvXieptNAgLg5vFLQj6hGUzNe-2R-Z6bd8&s=JRTkUCN7o1kzuECCJ13zBuWWdVCVJ5nCljfpltHBDLw&e=>: Staff will review the Charter to make sure any overarching issues are reflected in the Next Steps document and in the Charter Questions annex.

-- Question: Whether the WG would like to call out the additional questions in the Initial Report for comment?  Answer: WG confirms that they should be included for public comment.
-- No changes from the WG.

4. Public Comment Tool: Address any questions/clarify possible areas of confusion. See: https://forms.gle/FjAarKNu2HGzdKo8A [forms.gle] [forms.gle]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forms.gle_FjAarKNu2HGzdKo8A-2520-255bforms.gle-255d&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=nR5qJDIQju7kMHo8QJVONKra4V_FQJWuR99N2JMYCMM&s=C19Rr-54ge6ZHRu6S_bWJ85WaCXSm0Zmx9HuVRFYwyw&e=>

-- Standard form for public comments.
-- Ensures that the categorization of the comments is more accurate.  Staff don’t have to make assumptions concerning support/non-support.
-- Enables commenters to use a free-form box to provide general comments.
-- Commenters can access both a Word and PDF version as a working document, although commenters will need to submit comments using the tool.

ACTION ITEMS:
-- Add to the introduction: "Please note: that there is an option at the end of this form for those who wish to add text or a point not covered by the questions"  Also note that there is a character limit.
-- Add at the end, “are there any other recommendations that you believe the WG should consider making?”
-- Use all capitals to show emphasis – since boldface is not an option.  But use sparingly.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20200311/e876ceb0/attachment-0001.html>